You are on page 1of 14

THE EFFECT OF INLET AIR COOLING SYSTEMS IN COMBINED CYCLE PERFORMANCE Raquel Gareta, CIRCE Luis M.

Romeo, CIRCE Antonia Gil, CIRCE


CIRCE (Centre of Research for Power Plants Efficiency). University of Zaragoza Centro Politcnico Superior, Maria de Luna, 3, 50015 Zaragoza (Spain)

ABSTRACT Gas turbines (GT) have been used traditionally to provide electricity during power demand peaks. In recent years, they are also integrated in high-efficiency power stations using combined cycle technologies (CC). Despite their high efficiency, GT performance strongly depends on ambient air temperature. It is well known the negative effect of this parameter on GT efficiency and power output. In a CC, the high temperature and relative humidity of the ambient air also influence the cooling tower behaviour, causing higher pressure in the condenser, and consequently reducing the steam turbine cycle efficiency. A proper solution to minimise this negative effect is to reduce GT inlet air temperature by means of an air cooling system. Nevertheless, although the effect of different cooling systems on GT operation has been widely analysed, there is a lack of studies relating their influence on CC performance. The aim of this paper is to analyse the effect of the different cooling systems in CC power output, to study their limitations, to evaluate the economical benefits of installing GT cooling system, and finally, to analyse the key points in order to size properly cooling equipment.

INTRODUCTION Gas turbines (GT) have been widely used to produce electricity power. In simple cycles, GT provide electricity in power demand peaks; in cogeneration, they generate both heat and electric power; and in combined cycles (CC), GT produce electricity with high efficiency. Regarding the latter, they are a competitive alternative to produce electricity power, since their high efficiency reduces both production costs and emissions, which are very important in the current economic and environmental framework. In spite of these advantages, GT performance is strongly affected by weather conditions. High temperatures cause a decrease on efficiency and power output, due to their influence on the inlet air mass flow rate. This effect could be important in summer months, when demand increases due to the use of air conditioning systems. The solution lies in reducing the GT inlet air temperature, trying to achieve winter conditions. This effect can be reached with different GT cooling systems. These systems have been widely studied before for GT open cycles (De Lucia et al., 1994, 1995 and 1997) but there is a lack of studies relating their influence on CC performance. An inlet air cooling system not only modifies GT power output, but also changes the GT exhaust gases properties. For this reason, in a CC, the bottoming cycle behaviour is also modified. The variations of exhaust gases properties depend on GT type, and could adversely influence the steam cycle power output. A CC cycle based on an industrial GT with a triple

pressure HRSG has been selected for analysis. Four different cooling alternatives have been considered: evaporative coolers, mechanical chillers and absorption chillers with and without ice storage. Depending on the cooling alternative and sizing, different power increases in GT and CC are achieved. Obviously, a higher power cooling system increases both complexity and CC power augmentation. The weather conditions also influence an optimum sizing and power improvements. All this variables, as well as gas and electricity prices affect the economic results of the cooling system. Accordingly, the complexity of the current electricity tariff system and the natural gas cost have been taken into account to evaluate an air cooling system. Natural gas price has raised recently due to the rise in the hydrocarbons price. In consequence, the difference between electricity production cost due to gas natural consumption and electricity sale price has been reduced. For this reason, both parameters (market complexity and reduction of the profit margin) should be considered in analysis. This paper studies all this variables in two different scenarios with different climate and different electricity and gas natural costs using a common CC model. COMBINED CYCLE AND COOLING SYSTEMS Combined Cycle A three-level steam pressure combined cycle has been chosen for analysis. It is based on a 260 MW Industrial GT and a 140 MW steam turbine (Infopower, n23 and n25, Turbomachinery International, vol. 38). Both gas and steam cycles have been simulated in order to study the influence of climatic data and GT inlet air-cooling installation. The standard GT corrections for power output, heat rate, mass flow rate and exhaust gases temperature at different ambient temperatures, as well as inlet and outlet pressure drop parameters have been calculated by means of performance curves. The variation of exhaust gases properties has been considered due to its relevant influence on the temperature profile of the Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG). Additional GT inlet and outlet pressure drop have been taken into account because of the influence of cooling coils and HRSG. Ambient conditions are input variables for this model. Output variables are GT efficiency and power output and exhaust gases properties. The HRSG has been modelled as heat exchangers in series. Overall, heat transfer coefficients have been calculated for the different equipment inside HRSG. The selected HRSG has three steam pressure levels (125 bar HP, 30 bar MP and 5 bar LP) and produces live steam at constant conditions. Model input variables are temperature and exhaust gases mass flow rate, drum pressures and steam conditions at steam turbine inlet. High, medium and low steam flow rate have been obtained as output variables. The Steam Turbine (ST) is composed of four differentiated parts. Flow coefficients, pressure ratios and efficiencies have been used for simulating these modules. Extractions to or from the HRSG have also been considered. Finally, mass and energy balances considering ST exhaust losses have been performed. Input variables to this model are lived and reheat steam conditions and condenser pressure. Output variables are inlet and outlet steam conditions on the extractions and the power output. CC condenser is modelled as a heat exchanger refrigerated by cooling water.

Cooling system has been simulated taking into account the influence of climate parameters on the cooling tower behaviour and using Merkel equation. Inputs are weather conditions and water cooling temperature, output variable is condenser pressure. In order to obtain the performance of the whole CC model, these four independent thermodynamic models have been integrated with or without different cooling system simulations. Using these models and the climate data, it is possible to calculate the CC performance at different inlet ambient conditions and analyse the technical and economical influence of the GT inlet air-cooling in a combined cycle power station. Cooling Systems There are different cooling techniques in order to improve the GT and CC performance. In this paper, evaporative, mechanical and absorption with and without ice storage have been considered. It is well know the effect of different cooling systems on GT operation (De Lucia et al., 1994, 1995 and 1997), but there is a lack of studies relating their influence on CC performance. Before introducing its influence on CC power output, a brief description of each system has been made. Evaporative coolers: Evaporative systems cool the inlet air by pulverising water into the air stream. The water evaporation causes the air temperature to decrease (Mee Industries Inc., 1999; Braden manufacturing LLC, 2000). Locations of low humidity climate are suitable to use this cooling technology. Two considerations must be taken into account. Firstly, the maximum relative humidity that it is possible to reach with an evaporative system is hardly over 90%. Secondly, the difference between wet and dry bulb temperatures in the outer section of the evaporative system is recommended not to be under 1C. Heat absorption chillers: These systems are one of the best options for CC, due to the possibility of working with a low-pressure steam extraction. That extraction is condensed and returns to the steam cycle via desgasificator. The required steam mass flow rate is taken to avoid unnecessary power loses in the bottoming cycle. The absorption chiller selected uses the CC cooling tower to refrigerate both absorber and evaporator. As a consequence, steam cycle performance is slightly deteriorated due to the losses in steam mass flow and the increase of the condenser pressure. Mechanical chillers: Since the chiller compressor needs electricity to work, the power output improvement is partially reduced with mechanical cooling systems. However, the temperature reduction could be as high as desired. Mechanical chiller results are similar to those obtained with an absorption chiller. Heat absorption chiller with ice storage. Other performance concept: When the differences between peak and no-peak demand prices are high, the use of ice storage is advisable. This system allows to storage cool energy, i.e. when electricity prices are low, and to use the storage energy to reduce air temperature when electricity prices increase. In places with small variation of electricity prices, this option is not economically competitive. Although an important temperature reduction could be achieved during some period, the month average power output improvements are worse as compared to other chillers. During

part of the day, the cooling system is off but a power consumption exists to generate and storage ice. This system could work some hours a day in critical months (summer), but the same ice tank capacity allows to work more hours (sometimes all day) in winter months. Normally, the selected hours to work are those with higher electricity prices, and the energy storage is made along the whole day. SCENARIOS Climatic data The whole CC and, more strictly, GT behaviour strongly depends on weather conditions. Therefore, it is important to handle weather parameters (temperature and relative humidity) in order to characterise a particular site climate. Since the climate determines the power output, a similar treatment should be applied to the climate and the electricity price to join both influences on economic evaluation. In this way, the weather determines power output. The power output and the simultaneous electricity price determine the CC incomes. An average day has been selected for each month, consisting of 24 temperature and relative humidity points. Since there are 12 months, 288 points have been studied (12 months*24 hours). Accordingly, 288 electricity sale prices have also been calculated. Gas and Electricity prices Some of the European electricity markets follow a pool system. Every hour (or half an hour), electricity has a different sale price depending on the supply and demand. It should be considered that these prices are different in labour days or weekends. Consequently, two average days for each month, one for labour days and another for weekends have been selected. If extra power output (incomes) and extra fuel consumption (payments) are known, due to the installation of a cooling system, an economical study can be made to analyse the economical variables of an air cooling system investment. In this economical analysis, it is necessary to take both prices (gas-electricity) at the same period. Due to the semi-regulation of the gas prices by many of the European governments, electricity tariff is influenced by hydrocarbons prices. METHOD APPLICATION AND RESULTS Input data have been arranged as an average day for each month, in particular temperature, relative humidity, electricity price and gas natural cost data. Output data are subsequently calculated using the CC and cooling system models. Main output data considered are power output, fuel consumption, water consumption, CC efficiency, incomes and payments. Since the use of cooling systems for partial CC loads is not generally recommended, a constant full load is considered in the present study. Input and output variables are shown in table 1. As a main advantage, the present method permits to determine the daily evolution of the CC power output with and without a cooling system. This evolution together with hourly electricity prices allows to obtain an economical evaluation of these cooling systems. Fuel and water for the evaporative cooling system have been also considered in the payment formulation. The same study is repeated for each month and with different cooling systems.

H. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

INPUT DATA Without CS. With CS. Comparison Economics Weather Elect-lab Elect-w.e. Nat. Gas P.Outp. Nat.Gas P.Outp. Nat.Gas P.Output Nat.Gas Incom. Paym. Temp HR /MWh /MWh cent/Therm MWh Therm MWh Therm MWh Therm 22.9 75 22.930 25.453 381.30 572675 383.86 576223 2.556 3547 60.5 48.3 22.3 78 17.721 24.339 382.22 573878 384.17 576557 1.954 2678 38.4 36.5 21.8 80 17.782 20.826 383.01 574884 384.57 576996 1.562 2110 29.2 28.9 21.4 81 17.708 17.853 383.69 575691 385.05 577517 1.363 1824 24.2 25.0 21.1 82 17.671 17.828 384.18 576297 385.35 577847 1.175 1549 20.8 21.3 20.8 83 17.728 17.743 384.67 576902 385.66 578182 0.990 1279 17.6 17.6 20.7 83 18.087 17.570 384.85 577105 385.84 578380 0.986 1274 17.7 17.6 22.7 77 22.311 17.136 381.54 573076 383.71 576055 2.166 2979 45.1 40.6 25.1 66 25.212 16.926 377.88 568311 382.46 574722 4.585 6410 104.6 87.0 27.4 59 27.240 18.877 374.20 563872 380.67 572818 6.464 8944 160.4 121.4 29.3 52 28.526 22.947 371.37 560342 379.87 571987 8.503 11644 228.8 158.1 30.9 48 29.267 24.493 368.89 557492 378.75 570820 9.863 13327 275.0 181.1 1.280 32.4 44 29.311 24.272 366.66 554942 377.95 569995 11.291 15052 314.4 204.7 33.6 41 29.472 24.432 364.92 553000 377.35 569379 12.432 16378 348.2 223.0 34.4 39 28.841 23.993 363.79 551759 377.01 569032 13.222 17272 362.7 235.3 34.8 38 28.621 23.534 363.23 551155 376.86 568878 13.624 17721 369.8 241.5 34.6 38 28.961 23.109 363.57 551456 377.16 569188 13.589 17732 370.5 241.6 34.1 39 29.146 23.299 364.30 552219 377.47 569501 13.167 17281 361.4 235.3 32.5 40 29.221 22.760 366.93 554777 379.46 571572 12.526 16795 342.5 228.3 30.2 45 28.311 22.936 370.43 558724 380.99 573186 10.559 14462 282.5 196.3 27.9 50 27.083 25.172 374.07 562930 382.81 575126 8.739 12195 231.8 165.4 26.2 57 28.504 26.386 376.56 566169 383.29 575629 6.729 9459 187.7 128.3 24.8 64 28.251 26.720 378.58 568901 383.54 575894 4.966 6992 138.1 94.9 23.7 71 27.716 25.457 380.10 571078 383.50 575839 3.403 4760 92.1 64.7 Economic result: +42813 /month

Table 1. Example of the method application in August (evaporative system in Sevilla). In order to compare results and to make conclusions, two different scenarios have been taken: Sevilla (Spain) and Manchester (UK). Both climate (figure 1) and electricity prices (figure 2) are different enough to make conclusions of these important variables in final economic results

30.0 Sevilla 25.0 Manchester

Monthly average Temperature (C)

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Months

Figure 1. Climate comparison of the selected locations

In Sevilla, the weather is hot and dry, whereas in Manchester, the weather is cold and humid. Therefore the cooling systems performance is completely different. In hot and dry climates its behaviour is improved in comparison with cold and humid weather. Smaller

equipment is needed for the same air temperature reduction. However, the high electricity prices in UK produces better economic results.
70.0 60.0 Sevilla Manchester

Monthly average Elec. Price (Euro/MWh)

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Months

Figure 2. Electricity price comparison of the selected locations

Electricity prices in UK are usually higher than in Spain, and occasionally they could be double of Spanish ones (January and September). This point is extremely important because the same energy production in both locations results in a higher economical profit in UK.

410 400

Without cooler Evaporative cooler

Monthly average power output (MW)

390 380 370 360 350 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Months

Figure 3. Comparison between CC Power output performance in an average year in Sevilla with and without an evaporative cooler. As it can be inferred from figure 3, using an evaporative cooling system, a better improvement is reached in summer months than in winter ones for Sevilla location. In addition, in the central hours of summer days the improvement is still higher than the average

result. Nevertheless, the objective of this study is to compare the general performance of these systems, as it will be shown below.

410 405

Without cooler LiBr Abs. 8MW LiBr Abs. 20MW

Monthly average power output (MW)

400 395 390 385 380 375 370 365 360 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Months

Figure 4. CC Power output performance in Sevilla using a heat absorption chiller.

Results using a heat absorption chiller are shown in figure 4. A 20 MW cooling power heat-absorption LiBr system has been selected for the study. This cooling power is the maximum for the CC to reach, because a higher cooling power will need more heat than CC is able to produce in the extraction point selected. As shown in figure 4, it allows to reach the maximum recommended cooling of the inlet air stream (7C) during 88% of the period. An 8MW cooling power system is also studied, which allows to reach only 1518C in GT inlet air. Nevertheless, this is the best efficiency point of CC when electricity production costs are the lowest. Economic profit can be also reached in this case, because less power improvement with less production costs makes that total incomes were similar than more power improvement with worse efficiency. This option is especially interesting when electricity prices are low and efficiency turns into a critical factor. In Manchester, it is not necessary to use systems as powerful as in Sevilla. The power output reduction in summer in Manchester is less strong than in Sevilla, because of the mild climate. In consequence, a 20MW chilling power cooling is excessively large, and requires a high investment. A 10MW chilling power cooling is adequate in Manchester, because, as shown in figure 5, it reaches the maximal CC power output along the whole year (inlet temperature of 7C). In figure 5, the CC power output in Manchester is also shown and it is remarkable that the actual power output is above the design point during the whole year. Therefore, from a technical point of view, GT inlet cooling is not essential, but, as it will be seen in the next sections, this option is profitable.

410 405

Monthly average power output (MW)

400 395 390 385 380 375 370 365 360 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Without cooler LiBr Abs. 8MW LiBr Abs. 10MW

Months

Figure 5. CC Power output performance in Manchester using a heat absorption chiller.

The mechanical chillers performance is very clear if figure 6 (mechanical chiller) is compared with figure 4 (heat absorption chiller). The power output improvement is partially reduced due to the compressor consumption. Two different cooling power chillers (8MW and 20MW) have been studied. With this cooling technology, bottoming cycle is not affected.

410 405

Without cooler Mechanical 8MW Mechanical 20MW

Monthly average power output (MW)

400 395 390 385 380 375 370 365 360 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Months

Figure 6. CC Power output performance in Sevilla using a mechanical chiller.

ECONOMIC RESULTS Since electricity prices are influenced by hydrocarbons ones, electricity and natural gas prices of the same year (1999) are considered in the study. In addition, a constant inflation value of 2% and a maintenance cost of 1.5 % of the original investment every year are

assumed. Finally, 90% CC availability per year is considered. Values of equipment prices derived from the economic study are shown in table 2.
Cooling systems Evaporative cooler Heat absorption (20MW) Heat absorption (10MW) Heat absorption (8MW) Mechanical (20MW) Mechanical (10MW) Mechanical (8MW) Heat absorption with ice storage (S) Heat absorption with ice storage (M) Price () 255 000 4 230 000 2 115 000 1 695 000 4 800 000 2 400 000 1 920 000 6 000 000 2 890 000 723.0 /kW 240.0 /kW 211.5 /kW /kW (cooling power) -

Table 2. Cooling systems investments depending on the selected technology Prices in table 2 are based in Giourof, 1995; but they are adapted taking into account information of manufacturers (Mee Fog, 1999) and new technological options to reduce the investment (i.e. using CC refrigeration system to refrigerate the chillers). In order to calculate economic values, the selling prices of the Spain and UK electricity pool in 1999 have been considered. This working method is accurate, because the power output improvement is calculated online, taking into account the electricity sale price generated at that moment by the market pool (www.omel.es, 2000; www.elecpool.com, 2000). To estimate the selling prices of the UK pool in the same currency (Euro) it has been considered 0.617 pounds () an Euro (). Other relevant economic parameters studied are the NPV (Net Present Value), IRR (Internal Rate of Return) and Present Payback of Return. They are analysed for a 15 years life investment. Table 3 shows the capital investment for different cooling methods compared with the main incomes and payments generated by each system. In this study, taken into account a very specific economic scene (Spanish electricity market), a high cash flow corresponds with the equipment of lower cost (Heat absorption 8MW). Some chillers obtain negative values in the medium term NTV. It is remarkable that this economic framework (low electricity prices and high gas natural prices) makes that less powerful systems (8MW) obtain less power output improvement but better cash flow than the higher ones (20MW). The reason is that the efficiency of the CC power station is deteriorated. Since the profit margin of the produced kilowatt is very low, it is not interesting to minimise GT inlet temperature. In order to obtain the best economic results, it is advisable to reduce the air temperature to the design point (1518C). This is achieved with an equipment of lower cooling power (8MW). Therefore, sizing is a critical factor in Spain.

Investment Evaporative cooler: Heat absorpt. (20MW) Heat absorpt. (8MW): Mechanical (20MW): Mechanical (8MW): Heat abs. & ice storage: 255 000 4 230 000 1 695 000 4 800 000 1 920 000 6 000 000

Power output MWh 34 019 96 005 73 761 91 510 70 598 71 657

Nat Gas T 4 8345 402 166 383 339 120 702 268 168 055 248 120 702 363 120 342 540

Power output 997 533 2 700 946 2 089 045 2 578 696 2 002 097 2 087 878

Nat Gas 612 647 2 132 405 1 542 601 2 154 162 1 542 602 1 484 952

Cash Flow 340 842 502 527 519 992 349 626 429 532 512 926

Table 3. Relevant annual incomes, payments and cash flows of the cooling systems studied in Sevilla.
Cash Flow Evaporative cooler: Heat absorpt. (20MW) Heat absorpt. (8MW): Mechanical (20MW): Mechanical (8MW): Heat abs. & ice storage: 340 842 502 527 519 992 349 626 429 532 512 926 Pay-back years 0.77 8.44 3.28 13.75 4.49 11.70 NTV 15 5 523 755 4 290 015 7 121 120 1 127 667 5 362 423 1 693 893 IRR 15 % 133.04 9.78 31.40 2.63 22.53 3.28

Table 4. Economic parameters of the different cooling systems in Sevilla. The study of similar equipment allows to appreciate differences in technical and economic results. By these means is possible to verify the strongly influence of the climate and gas and electricity market conditions. Considering the technical behaviour, worse power improvement is detected in Manchester as compared to Sevilla. The reason is that a CC has a better performance in Manchester because of its moderate climate. Consequently, the maximum improvement that can be reached is low. Otherwise in Sevilla, the warm climate produces a worse performance of the gas turbine, resulting in higher power improvements. However, these tendencies are not reflected in the economic results. Electricity prices are higher in UK than in Spain, whereas gas prices are lower. Therefore, the profit margin is larger than in Spain. For this reason, electricity production using natural gas as fuel is advisable in UK and, as it is verified in the tables 5 and 6, economic parameters are favourable.
Investment Evaporative cooler: Heat absorpt. (10MW) Heat absorpt. (8MW): Mechanical (10MW): Mechanical (8MW): Heat abs. & ice storage:
255 000 2 115 000 1 695 000 4 800 000 1 920 000 2 892 000

Power output MWh


8 339 24 263 23 979 22 088 21 691 16 821

Nat Gas T
12 209 487 41 322 345 40 658 377 39 660 609 38 718 171 29 184 314

Power output
412 595 1 115 315 1 088 281 1 021 182 993 324 920 798

Nat Gas
144 211 490 813 482 962 470 327 459 237 331 685

Cash Flow
245 373 591 495 578 868 513 401 504 124 545 734

Table 5. Relevant annual incomes, payments and cash flows of the cooling systems studied in Manchester.

Cash Flow Evaporative cooler: Heat absorpt. (10MW) Heat absorpt. (8MW): Mechanical (00MW): Mechanical (8MW): Heat abs. & ice storage:
245 373 591 495 578 868 513 401 504 124 545 734

Pay-back years
1.06 3.60 2.95 4.69 3.83 5.30

NTV 15
3 905 130 7 913 399 8 119 311 6 304 362 6 627 086 5 294 007

IRR 15 %
96.33 28.57 34.98 21.44 26.75 17.10

Table 6. Economic parameters of the different cooling systems in Manchester.

Power output improvement (kW)

30000 25000 20000 SEVILLA 15000 10000 5000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hours MANCHESTER

700
Economic benefits (Euro)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hours SEVILLA MANCHESTER

Figure 7. Sevilla and Manchester power output improvement comparison and respective economical benefits in august. Since electricity power generates higher incomes per kilowatt, the maximum temperature reduction is the recommended goal. A cooling system with the same technology but with higher chilling power always produces higher cash flows. Therefore, sizing must be made in order to reach the minimal air temperature that is technologically allowable in the GT inlet duct (5-7C). In summary, electricity framework is essential in the economic study and consequently, for the cooling system selection.

It is remarkable, as shown in figure 7, the extreme difference between the power output improvement and the income cash flow that this improvement generates. A high improvement, as in Sevilla, could result in negative incomes (1 to 9 a.m.), whereas little improvements as in Manchester can produces big benefit peaks (near 700/hour). Combining technical and economic results is feasible to determine that evaporative coolers generally have a good economic behaviour, due to their low cost. Their main disadvantage is that it is impossible to fix the inlet temperature below a point (dew temperature) which depends on the weather conditions (site climate). Their payback periods are less of a year when the climate is favourable (Sevilla) and near a year with adverse humidity (Manchester). Mechanical coolers have lower cash flow as compared to heat absorption ones (differences larger of 70000/year in all the cases studied). With the former, a slightly lower power output improvement and a slightly fuel decrement is obtained in comparison with the latter. Both effects make the mechanical chillers cash flow to decrease. Moreover, mechanical system cost (it has supposed a COP of 4.5 is higher than absorption cost, because all mechanical coolers studied have a COP of 4.5. It would be possible to find a cheaper mechanical cooler with a lower COP, but in such a case the energy consumption would increase and the cash flow would be just slightly modified. Sizing is another important aspect. In the economic study, it is verified that lowpower coolers have better results than high-power ones when economic framework is adverse to electricity production using natural gas (Spain, as shown in table 4). For an uncertain economic situation to generate electricity power using natural gas, it is recommended to size the cooler in order to obtain electricity with the best efficiency. It is observed that a best efficiency is obtained closer to design temperature (15-18C) rather than for the lowest inlet air temperatures (5-7C). Obviously, a lower cooler size is required to obtain 15C than 7C. In addition, cash flows are higher with small coolers than with high-sized ones (both mechanical or heat absorption), due to the efficiency improvement and maintenance reduction. If the economic situation changes to a favourable electricity production using natural gas as fuel (UK framework, as shown in table 6), the high-power chillers (sized to maximise improvement) will have better economic behaviour than the lower-power ones. However, lower-power coolers in a better economic trend will increase cash flow and make better economic parameters than expected. In consequence, when energy markets are uncertain, it is recommended not to size in order to obtain maximum power enhancements but in order to move CC performance to design point. CONCLUSIONS In this paper the method and the results obtained in the economical evaluation of a GT inlet air cooling system for CC applications have been briefly presented. The method is based on generating 288 climatic points, which represent the weather and electricity pool price of a given location. In view of maximising the power output enhancement, four different air inlet cooling systems have been comparatively analysed. Evaporative coolers behaviour greatly depends on weather conditions. On the other hand, the power output due to air-cooling is improved slightly by means of heat absorption chillers rather than with mechanical chillers. Finally, ice storage systems produce higher power at specific moments, but the improvement is worse in the average. Different factors can make a GT inlet air cooling system economically profitable. Firstly, since a warm climate decreases CC power output, installing a cooling system in order

to reduce inlet air temperature and improve power output can be the best solution. In warmer areas, the improvement of power means an important economic income, even in adverse electricity markets. Another factor is the economic framework. In mild climates, just a slight improvement is profitable if the electricity market is favourable to the electricity production using natural gas as fuel. Therefore, it is not necessary that all the factors are favourable to ensure the profitability of an air cooling system. Scenarios can be very different, so it is essential to realise complete studies considering all the variables. Sizing a GT inlet air cooler can be made according to two different points of view: aimed at obtaining the maximum power output improvement (GT inlet air temperature of 7C) or in order to search the best efficiency (design point, 1518C). In a suitable economic framework, the highest cash flow is obtained with the first option. In such a case, the cash flow only depends on power output improvement. However, when the economic situation is adverse or uncertain, sizing in view of the second option is more advisable, because investment costs are reduced and cash flows are optimised. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is extremely important to consider the economic framework before selecting the type and size of an air inlet cooler. Finally, in a favourable economic framework, as in UK, the highest power systems required by the climate must be selected (10MW), in order to maximise the power output improvement. In Spain, however, selecting an equipment to reach the design point (8MW) is more profitable than maximise the power output (20MW). Evaporative systems are an interesting alternative when low investments and short payback period are desired. REFERENCES Braden Manufacturing LLC. , 2000. Technical documentation. De Lucia M., Bronconi R., Carnevale E., 1994. Performance and economic enhancement of cogeneration gas turbines through compressor inlet air cooling. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Transactions of the ASME v116, n2 Apr 1994. Pp. 360-365c. De Lucia M., Lanfranchi C., Boggio V., 1995. Benefits of compressor inlet air cooling for gas turbine cogeneration plants. Proceedings of International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, ASME Paper 95-GT-311, pp. 1-7. De Lucia M., Carnevale E., Falchetti M., Tesei A., 1997. Performance improvements of a natural gas injection station using gas turbine inlet air cooling, Proceedings of the 1997 International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine Congress & Exposition. ASME Paper 97-GT-508, Elecpool, 2000. http://www.elecpool.com Giourof A., 1995. Gas-turbine inlet-air cooling: you can almost pick your payback, Power, 139 n 5, May, pp. 56-58. Infopower, 2000, n23, pp. 35101. Infopower, 2000, n25, pp. 15-77. INM, 1999. Instituto Nacional de Meteorologa http://www.inm.es Manchester weather historical data. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Mee Industries Inc., 1999. Technical documentation. Omel, 2000. Omel. Mercado de electricidad. http://www.omel.com GT26 Kicks off New Zealand Combined-Cycle Program, Turbomachinery International, 1997, vol. 38, n2, pp. 31-34.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY Ms. Raquel Gareta (M. Sc. Eng.) is a CIRCE researcher and PhD candidate. She studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Zaragoza with major speciality in Heat Transfer and Fluids Mechanics. She is working on R&D projects since August 1999 in activities related with gas turbine inlet air cooling, mainly focused on the selection of the most favourable cooling technology in each case. Luis M. Romeo (Ph. D. Eng.), is Project Manager of the Center for Power Plant Efficiency Research, and teach Thermodynamics in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zaragoza. He gained his professional experiences developing and managing several projects in different power plants such as the Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion Power Plant at Escatrn (Spain) and Teruel Power Plant (Spain). He works on R&D projects and in activities related with efficiency improvements and power plant modelisation, specially in combined cycles. Ms. Antonia Gil (Ph. D. Eng.) is a CIRCE project manager and professor of Heat Transfer and Energy Technology in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zaragoza. Her R&D activities have been focused on fluidized bed combustion and gas-solid separation technologies, especially in the optimisation of cyclone ash removal system performance at PFBC Escatrn (Spain). CIRCE (Centre for Power Plant Efficiency Research) is a Joint Research Foundation sponsored by the companies ENDESA (Spains largest utility) and ERZSA (Zaragoza Electric Company), the University of Zaragoza and the regional government of Aragon. It was formally established in 1993, although activities of CIRCEs university researcher began in 1981. General objective of CIRCE is the support of R&D activities in thermal power stations and energy systems.

You might also like